Comments

  • Buddhism and Communism


    It's about social identity, as the article says. Few can be hermits
  • Buddhism and Communism
    I watched a great old movie yesterday, Comrade X (1940). I was impressed with the talk of "ideals" in it (in opposition to a philosophy of "bogie-wogie and hotdogs") but the ending was really unrealistic
  • Buddhism and Communism
    I liked the article until the end when he turns on the reader and basically says the situation is hopeless. Saying Buddhism can "help" without there being revolution is not an intelligent assertion.
  • Is Kant justified in positing the existence of the noumenal world?
    Kant did not believe the thing in itself causes appearances. Phenomenology is like a union of the ideas of Parmenides and Heraclitus. And iis not easy to put into words
  • God and sin. A sheer unsolvable theological problem.
    Cardinal Hans Urns von Balthazar is very popular in modern Catholic reading circles nowadays and he disagrees with the traditional Greek-scholastic idea that evil is purely privative. Just thought I'd throw that out there
  • Formless sublime and negative representation
    Negative refers to process and formlessness does as well
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    Life arises from the motion of chemicals. I didn't use the word organic. Anyway, you are still trying interpret modern physics within the parameters of Aristotle's theory of being and that just doesn't work. Do you know that length is relative? Do you understand how time causes gravity? Modern physics is much closer to process philosophy than outdated Thomism. We know from science and mathematics that a self-consistent infinity of past motions is possible. I question whether the very idea of Aquinas's God is even plausible on very serious grounds
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    Thomism has been fought against since Spinoza and Hume. I'll read your longer article today sometime. This is fun because I base my arguments on my own critique of Aquinas's and Aristotle's original writings. I don't read a lot of contemporary commentary
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    I comprehended your critique of Thomistic consolidation of all attributes in a single first Mover and can tell you understand the arguments. You've done a fine job. I recently have been inspired by Jung's idea of darker, more primitive god who interacts with the human mind at deep levels. We can't know about the existence of this being nonetheless like we can of a table or chair. Aquinas's God is good by his will being infinitely subtle in its goodness and although this may be a ideal a human may have but it can not be proven to be a reality outside us
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    "If being exists as over against God, it is its own support; it does not preserve the least trace of divine creation. In a word, if it had been created, being-in-itself would inexplicable in terms of creation; for it assumes its being beyond creation. This is equivalent to saying that being is uncreated." Sartre in Being and Nothingness

    Aquinas writes like Mozart made music. Technique is good in both but neither are the best at their craft. I wish I could enjoy Aquinas and get into that but his writings are a bore so I read more difficult philosophies by other writers. Thomists say that they can prove their is a God but is their proof infallible? Can philosophy prove anything beyond all doubts? It seems to me that Aquinas made an error in making existence a predicate of essence
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    Are you saying time is measure of motion or that it is a dynamic aspect of space? Aristotle said the first, Einstein the second

    I see no reason that actuality has to be centered and combined in one entity prior to the world since potentiality, the might of substance, time, and motion operate as a organic whole following the laws of relativity to produce a dynamic experience of time
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    I can't say for sure that an actuality that has all power and goodness is not the ground of being. It's not about that. It has to do with what is provable. I've been saying that time, near infinite potentiality, and limited material actuality move by the laws of physics to produce life and the experience of phenomena. You would have to provide an infallible proof that an infinite person is required to explain the universe in spite of the fact that Aristotelian physics has been debunked
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    Important addition:

    The arrow of time is not absolute as Aristotle thought. Time is not the sustaining power of God in the universe, but something science can frame and understand. Imagine two sets of cards suspended under a piece of cardboard. We will call the cardboard space. Now because of the first or prime force the the cards fall side by side, and we will call one deck time and the other motion. This little illustration helps us see that time is potentiality and exists only so far as motion is happening, but the prime mover could simply be the empty space into which the cards fall, and the laws of General Relativity can explain it from there with greater precision
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    An unnecessary distinction unless in a larger context. The first three chapters of Phenomenology of Mind are by far the best of Hegel's first book. It shows many ways of looking at time (now) and space (here). His "Logic" books add a lot of neat thoughts too. I would someday like to write a 60 to 80 page paper expressing all his particular thoughts on matter and actuality in condensed form. When seen within the context of modern physics, a different perspective emerges than the Thomistic one. Everything within the universe moves at the speed of light all while in the spacetime continuum. There is a trade-off between space and time. When you move faster in space you move slower in time and visa versa. Since physics can now explain the world without supernatural assumptions, the Thomistic arguments are left with philosophical arguments alone, all of which can be absorbed within the larger framework of phenomenology
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    For the reader:

    Aquinas makes a distinction between an

    1) accidental infinite series

    and an

    2) essential infinite series

    God makes an accidental series essential in Aquinas's mind. An accidental series without God is a false essential series for him

    However, Einstein and the majority of great physicists since Newton have not believed a non-physical explanation is needed to make sense of an eternal past, so once we understand Aquinas's errors in physics we can know how his three cosmological arguments are wrong
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    Things exist in between Aristotelian actuality and potentiality, and move by virtue of their material constitutions. Physics easily says of this is done. I dont know what you thought phenomenology meant, but it is inherently anti-Thomistic and is in it's origins is about giving a different explanation of the world than Aristotle
  • Is Kant justified in positing the existence of the noumenal world?
    "Unless, therefore, we are to move constantly in a circle, the word appearance must be recognized as already indicating a relation to something, the immediate representation of which is, indeed, sensible, but which, even apart from the constitution of our sensibility (upon which the form of our intuition is grounded), must be something in itself, that is, an object independent of sensibility. There thus
    results the concept of a noumenon. It is not of anything, but signifies only the thought of something in general, in which I abstract from everything that belongs to the form of sensible intuition." Kant

    That is a great quote. I like this thread. Kant is dear to me
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    For the reader:

    Aristotle and Aquinas assumed an infinite power was needed to cause motion throughout eternity. Physicists now know this is wrong and consequently reject this notion of Aristotle's physics. Aquinas dovetailed faulty physics with endless musings about forms and matter, essence and existence, and potency and actuality. Phenomenology offers a legitimate alternative to Thomistic speculations, and if you accept modern physics, you are in a position to put Aquinas's arguments into the dustpan of history
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    Each of Hegel's books is like a concept album. So you don't get the full affect until you finish the last page
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    The point of Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre is that objects exist a priori. I guess you don't understand them. And yes, Greeks hated the number zero and thought the idea of nothingness a dangerous idea. That's where Aquinas got his phobia of nothingness from!
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus
    Holy sites throughout the middle ages each had its own legend of how it had the foreskin (and sometimes umbilical cord) of Jesus and why it had been preserved by Mary, given to an apostle, and past down. Protestants want to accept Gospel miracles but none of the Marian miracles by the way. Why not reject of the above!

    Also, Hypatia is an interesting case of a figure who's story was latter changed into a story about Christian martyr with an almost identical story line. Legends change

    Lastly, here are many examples like the following (I come across these all the time now that my radar for them is up): doctors practice their skills at medicine to get a profession, but only then are they said to have a practice. Isn't that strange language? If I see a barber shop that says "Kelly's shop", we here in American society know there likely is no "Kelly" but instead it's just a title for the place. But if an archaeologist in the future saw this, he would assume the closest Kelly who lived in the vicinity owned that barber shop. So that's just more reasoning on how interpreting ancient texts is very uncertain.
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    you seem to do is make oddball off the wall, or incoherent,Metaphysician Undercover

    You don't say how though

    If you can show me a way to understand the concepts of potential and actual which you think is better than the one I've derived from the Aristotelian tradition,Metaphysician Undercover

    I don't know if you will find it better, but there are alternatives. Every object has potential to be painted, burned, thrown in the air, and lots of other things. But it is actual. All objects are like this and have always been this way. The universe has always been free falling through space so to speak and gravity, friction, and other factors have kept all the energy moving. There is no need for something BEHIND because physics is always ALONG SIDE.

    Your idea of seinsfrage ("what is being") in terms of potency and actuality, to use the terminology of Heidegger, leads to a very strange notion of zeitlichkeit (the here and now as "this very presence"). "The sense of the world must lie outside the world" says Wittgenstein. If you don't want to read a Hegel book from to cover and really try to understand it (which is the best way to get past Thomism), then maybe try Being and Nothingness by Sartre, who tries in a very subtle way to cure Aristotle's horror of nothing
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus
    Phlegon’s second century Book of Marvels is interesting. It reveals a lot about the mentality of ancient times. Miracles have been claimed in every religion, society, and region. Writing about miracles was a form of story telling in that age and religion has primarily that function in society. Oddly, even the Illiad speaks of actions of "the gods". And Asclepius was the Greek God known for resurrecting the dead. Putting monotheism as a pedestal doesn't really change the fact that Christian literature is the same in genre as other writings on ancient history. You go through the Gospels, saying yes to every story while saying no to every miracle. Christians read it like it's a divine novel and that's the reason that method of reading doesn't make sense to them. They want it to be true. Maybe the world needed a crazy "story of mercy" 2000 years ago, as Jordan Peterson sorta argues. That's why it was successful. Not because it was true
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus


    Ye they are nerdy werdo's with a homo fetish for Jim Caviezel
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    We've talked before about whether a stop sign is one form or many. I pointed out that we sense it as one thing but the screw in it seems to indicate more than one thing. You responded, as Thomists do, that the mind is fallible. I say to you "so is your reasoning for God"

    We've talked before about Zeno's paradox. Aristotle essentially answers this by saying that a whole has parts only potentially, and yet I say "cannot God divide it infinitely"? When I press Thomists on this, they say, "the mind is fallible". I respond: "so are your arguments for God".

    You've criticized Hegel in the past in your arguments with Jerseyflight. But I ask you, how many of Hegel's books have you read? I've read and processed the first Book of the Summa Gentiles and much of Aquinas's other writings, so I am familiar with them. I ask you, have you read a whole book by Hegel? Are you capable of processing a whole book of his? How do you know your reasoning on matters of "potentiality and actuality" is infallible?
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus
    In Luke 9:60 Jesus said "Let the dead bury their own", apparently saying we should disrespect the dead. In Luke 14:26 he tells his disciples to "hate" their family members and in Matthew 10:34-42 he said he came to bring violence.Gregory

    I should add that he also said God had abandoned him
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    For the reader:

    Thomists like to run amuck with ideas of "potentiality" and "actuality". I find that defining God as pure actuality is very ackward and unnecessary. The whole endeavour of trying to prove transcendental powers beyond the world requires a desire for the arguments to work before you encounter them and generally taking the ideas farther than is wise to take them. Aquinas said an object is mathematically divisible to infinity but even God can't divide it to infinity. Thomist hate getting into that quagmire and most people don't like their "potentiality -actuality" tar baby either. However, since they so wanted the proof of God to work as they studied it, now that it's gelled their brains, they have become convinced of their own infallibility, although they will admit at other times that problems presented to them cannot be solved. So be cautious with Thomists. Their method of writing sounds erudite, but it may be because they built their lives on a desire for perfection
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    You're say in response to the question "how many parts does a tree have": "our minds are fallible"

    You're response to the question of whether a lamp or a street sign have one form or many: "our minds are fallible"

    Yet you think you have fully figured out that there is deity based on two petty ideas?
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic priest who got addicted to pagan philosophy when he should have been reading the Jewish-Catholic Bible. He caused endless headaches for the Church through his addiction.

    Aristotle did not know that:

    1) nothingness is a reality

    2) that matter is fully actual

    3) that nothingness and matter stand in a relationship we cannot connect together with our minds

    4) that the reality of the soul in relationship to matter is better left not meditated on

    5) that the relationship between the simple soul and matter can never be fully grasped by the mind

    6) that the composite cannot be proven inferior to the simple by logical analysis
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.
    Thomist often say "I find your assumptions repugnant to intellect", to which we respond

    1) truth doesn't care about your feelings

    2) why are you assuming you considered every angle of the question at hand?
  • Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.


    Everything has potential and actuality, simplicity and matter. Its one reality that goes back to infinity and to nowhere
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus


    Yes, the different degrees of insanity and "evil" and combinations of the two are not considered by Lewis. He makes it far too black and white. How can we even properly imagine a "perfect person", let alone believe such existed in history
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus


    Of course they do
  • Biological Childbirth is immoral/hell
    Man must be social to grow. A mother chooses childbearing by having sex. Children are [email protected]#k trophies, but if this world is just and right it doesn't matter if you didn't choose existence, your parents, or being born. "It is not for us to choose our trials, but for us to make something of ourselves"
  • How should philosophy relate to all (current) scientific research?
    There is some validity to being cautious about judging other cultures medicines (acupuncture has been mentioned). If you prove in a double blind study that a certain medicine is effectual over placebo in the setting of a study, it's not entirely clear how this applies to people acting in everyday life and in other cultures. There is something to be said for those who say science can't figure out everything.
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus
    What type of Christianity to adopt is a question that has naturally caused Christians to accuse each other of having a false form of "the faith". What is agreed upon however is regular Christian " logic" such as "pre-Christians didn't know that God was humble, but because he is humble he can become man". I'm sorry (not really) but that is flawed on every level. The best way to understand the Gospels is that Jesus was a man like the rest of us. God does not become man, have testicles, piss in a toilet, and act as an animal as all humans must. God is an abstraction in the intellect. It's "reality" is not a very meaningful question. Take the number zero. It is very useful in calculations, but when focused on it loses its meaning. The concept of God is useful when doing "philosophical algebra" (as I call philosophising) but obsession with it in the sense of wondering if it has reality (like a rock or tree does) indicates you are on the wrong path. The way Christians act indicate they are on the wrong path. They literally think Jesus is going to come out of the sky on a white horse
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus
    Tolkein called Lewis a shallow Christian for not becoming Catholic. What form of Christianity is righteous is not agreed on
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus


    Could not God have arranged that people are like Mary and obtain heaven sinless and perfect on their merits? The Bible says "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" but Christians adopt the shameless position of having pity on God (never a good idea) in order to enter heaven, although unworthy, by someone's else's merits. Do you accept this dogma? In this thread I've offered alternative ways of seeing the opacity of ancient text in light of common sense and true philosophy. We can't know anything with certainty about Jesus, but looking at the Gospels with a desire to be saved without considering philosophy and how those matters work is going to end in believing something as silly as Family Guy. I don't take Christian philosophy seriously
  • C.S. Lewis on Jesus


    I pity Jesus's death because he was a man like me. If he were God I would have no reaction to his suffering because the whole situation would just be absurd.